The greatest debate within the readings for this week was centered on when emotions are biologically based and when they are sociologically based. In The Emotional Brain, LeDoux presented many interesting arguments from several different theorists. Some groups have asserted that the presence of emotion is inevitably biological, while those such as “Social constructivists” (The Emotional Brain, 115) feel that emotions are socially constructed. Based on all the ideas presented, I feel that emotional reactions to situations are inevitable. However, the ways in which we deal with these emotions are certainly socially constructed, as LeDoux said. To support this notion, he makes the point that people’s facial expressions often deceive them, because they are often more telling than a person’s words. We have all experienced situations in which our immediate facial expressions reveal more about our reaction than we wished for others to know. On a sociological level, individuals are conditioned to respond properly in certain situations. Reactions to different stimuli, such as fear, are certainly hugely influenced by social constructs. However, their presence within our biological makeup is inevitable.
Branching off what LeDoux said about varied emotional reactions to different situations, particularly fear, the study entitled Facial and Vocal Expressions examined the experience of the receiver and sender. The primary conclusion of the authors was the fact that receivers make many diverse deductions about a sender’s expression of emotion. Although facial expressions may fall on a universally broad spectrum, there still exists a huge range of expressions and receptions on the part of receivers. This point struck me as extremely important, because each person’s expression and reception to emotion will certainly be affected by their social experiences. As LeDoux said, the immediate presence of the mechanism is biological, but our individual responses are socially based.
The article The Naked Face made references to tests in which the subject had to decide if people were lying or telling the truth. A point made about them was that, “There is just too much information – words, intonation, gestures, eyes, mouth – and it is impossible to know how the various cues should be weighted, or how to put them all together, and in any case it’s all happening so quickly you can’t even follow what you think you ought to follow.” (The Naked Face, 2) This point was also raised in Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion, which acknowledged the fact that as much as we try to understand these expressions, they occur much too quickly. Additionally, our psychological response to them is largely unconscious, thus it becomes nearly impossible to recognize why we respond as we do.
One of the major issues throughout the readings was just how much one can judge by simply looking at someone’s face. I previously discussed the way in which our facial expressions can deceive us and what they truly reveal. The face has involuntary reactions to numerous different emotional situations, which appears to derive from the fact that these responses are primarily biological, although socially driven. This consistent battle of nature vs. nurture appears in most major issues throughout psychology and surfaces once again on a biology vs. sociology level. The debate was addressed in one way or another throughout all the readings, which led me to all of the above conclusions.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
February 7
In chapter 5, LeDoux highlights the ever-present role evolution plays in the formation of the brain mechanisms and expression of emotions. LeDoux proposes that emotional behaviors developed before the conscious feelings that now accompany. After all, it was the unconscious workings of the brain’s defense system that mediated the behavior necessary for animals to survive and reproduce. The conscious feeling of fear, for instance, seems less significant to natural selection than fear behavior like running from a predator.
The evolutionary origins of emotions and their behaviors also give evidence for the shared experience and brain systems of emotions between humans and animals. With the repeated example of fear, many species (including humans) share response strategies to dangers, such as fleeing, freezing, aggression, and submission along with physiological responses such as endogenous pain suppression. Regardless of the stimuli that elicit these responses, that the underlying neural circuitry of many different species share the common function of providing defense strategies makes animals good models for understanding human fear.
As LeDoux puts it, "different classes of emotional behavior represent different kinds of functions that take care of different kinds of problems for the animal and have different brain systems devoted to them." It has been shown that there is no single emotion system in the brain. It is also true that scientists have not come to an agreement on a spectrum of basic, innate emotions. This is not to say, however, that there are no inherited universals of emotion. Paul Ekman is one strong believer in the display of emotions through universal facial expressions. According to Ekman, culturally established display rules for emotional expression do not contradict the evidence that individuals of all cultures can identify the emotions behind certain facial configurations. He even went through the trouble of compiling photographs of the thousands of possible facial combinations along with their emotional connotations in the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). The fact that studying FACS can greatly increase the ability to interpret intent and emotional content behind expressions gives evidence for the assertion that emotions cause facial expressions. What’s even more interesting is the finding that facial expressions can cause emotions.
The article "Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion" mostly corroborates the conclusion that the facial expressions are universal representations of emotions, though cites studies that lower the degree of certainty. Vocal expressions (excluding language) are also considered as measurable results of emotion, but are found to be less reliable than faces. The review reminds us that the decided "correct" emotions corresponding to faces and voices is a subjective matter. Agreement is less common in people of non-Western nations. Are the expressions universal even if there is disagreement about which emotions and faces correspond? It may be, if Ekman and Tomkins are right. Logic does not require people to be logical, and if someone does poorly on the tests it may mean he is just not a good face reader. Societies that do not value emotional expression may not be as skilled in the area, but one might guess that they would perform better if the photographs were of members of their own culture or race, as it has been shown that people can distinguish the details of native, familiar faces better than those of foreign ones.
The article "The Experience of Emotion" took a more dimensional approach to studying emotion. Core effect, or general feelings on a positive/negative scale, is deemed a major feature of the emotional experience. Core effect includes states of pleasure/displeasure, reward/punishment, arousal/calm, etc. In addition to core effect, a mental representation of an emotion is intimately related to the surrounding psychological situation. This includes appraisal, but more broadly includes all sensory input combined with people’s memory, knowledge, and history as they have been integrated into their minds and behaviors. Such wide influences refer more to the causes of emotions of emotions rather than their experience, as we have seen that many affective factors are unconsciously processed. The article gives a review of the neural mechanisms behind core effect and the integration of experience into emotion, but admits, like in the problem of explaining consciousness, that how neural activation actually causes emotions is still unknown.
The final study, by Bechara and Naqvi, showed that activation and size of the anterior insular cortex (AIC), an area associated with the subjective experience of emotion, is correlated with a person’s ability to recognize the tempo of his heartbeats. It is interesting that accuracy is also correlated with self-reported anxiety; fast heartbeats are easier to feel than slow ones. I also wonder about the implications for size differences in the AIC. Can a larger size really predict a greater capacity to introspect? Can the conclusions even be extrapolated enough to consider the ability to sense one’s own heartbeat indicative of the propensity to understand one’s own emotions?
I’m also wondering about the emotional implications (neural, mental, and behavioral) of social isolation. Hasn’t the ability to experience emotions and sense them in others been preserved in feral children? It makes sense considering the similarities between humans and animals in emotional processing.
The evolutionary origins of emotions and their behaviors also give evidence for the shared experience and brain systems of emotions between humans and animals. With the repeated example of fear, many species (including humans) share response strategies to dangers, such as fleeing, freezing, aggression, and submission along with physiological responses such as endogenous pain suppression. Regardless of the stimuli that elicit these responses, that the underlying neural circuitry of many different species share the common function of providing defense strategies makes animals good models for understanding human fear.
As LeDoux puts it, "different classes of emotional behavior represent different kinds of functions that take care of different kinds of problems for the animal and have different brain systems devoted to them." It has been shown that there is no single emotion system in the brain. It is also true that scientists have not come to an agreement on a spectrum of basic, innate emotions. This is not to say, however, that there are no inherited universals of emotion. Paul Ekman is one strong believer in the display of emotions through universal facial expressions. According to Ekman, culturally established display rules for emotional expression do not contradict the evidence that individuals of all cultures can identify the emotions behind certain facial configurations. He even went through the trouble of compiling photographs of the thousands of possible facial combinations along with their emotional connotations in the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). The fact that studying FACS can greatly increase the ability to interpret intent and emotional content behind expressions gives evidence for the assertion that emotions cause facial expressions. What’s even more interesting is the finding that facial expressions can cause emotions.
The article "Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion" mostly corroborates the conclusion that the facial expressions are universal representations of emotions, though cites studies that lower the degree of certainty. Vocal expressions (excluding language) are also considered as measurable results of emotion, but are found to be less reliable than faces. The review reminds us that the decided "correct" emotions corresponding to faces and voices is a subjective matter. Agreement is less common in people of non-Western nations. Are the expressions universal even if there is disagreement about which emotions and faces correspond? It may be, if Ekman and Tomkins are right. Logic does not require people to be logical, and if someone does poorly on the tests it may mean he is just not a good face reader. Societies that do not value emotional expression may not be as skilled in the area, but one might guess that they would perform better if the photographs were of members of their own culture or race, as it has been shown that people can distinguish the details of native, familiar faces better than those of foreign ones.
The article "The Experience of Emotion" took a more dimensional approach to studying emotion. Core effect, or general feelings on a positive/negative scale, is deemed a major feature of the emotional experience. Core effect includes states of pleasure/displeasure, reward/punishment, arousal/calm, etc. In addition to core effect, a mental representation of an emotion is intimately related to the surrounding psychological situation. This includes appraisal, but more broadly includes all sensory input combined with people’s memory, knowledge, and history as they have been integrated into their minds and behaviors. Such wide influences refer more to the causes of emotions of emotions rather than their experience, as we have seen that many affective factors are unconsciously processed. The article gives a review of the neural mechanisms behind core effect and the integration of experience into emotion, but admits, like in the problem of explaining consciousness, that how neural activation actually causes emotions is still unknown.
The final study, by Bechara and Naqvi, showed that activation and size of the anterior insular cortex (AIC), an area associated with the subjective experience of emotion, is correlated with a person’s ability to recognize the tempo of his heartbeats. It is interesting that accuracy is also correlated with self-reported anxiety; fast heartbeats are easier to feel than slow ones. I also wonder about the implications for size differences in the AIC. Can a larger size really predict a greater capacity to introspect? Can the conclusions even be extrapolated enough to consider the ability to sense one’s own heartbeat indicative of the propensity to understand one’s own emotions?
I’m also wondering about the emotional implications (neural, mental, and behavioral) of social isolation. Hasn’t the ability to experience emotions and sense them in others been preserved in feral children? It makes sense considering the similarities between humans and animals in emotional processing.
Monday, February 5, 2007
February 7
In The Experience of Emotion, Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, and Gross address the philosophical issues that make emotions a problematic subject for scientific objectivism to approach. The authors begin with a discussion of two important viewpoints of the philosophy of mind- materialism and naturalism. They identify these opposing viewpoints as influential models for neuroscience and psychology in the study emotion but greatly favor the naturalist approach.
Materialism is portrayed as an accurate, yet incomplete paradigm for work on emotions. The authors define materialism as “the theory that mental contents are caused by and can therefore be redefined as nothing but physical processes”(2006). Materialist theories reduce emotion to pure physical phenomenon, therefore allowing mental states to be analyzed in terms physical states. The authors identify different analyses of materialism frequently used in scientific work on emotions- behaviorism (James, LeDoux), which analyzes mental states in terms of behavior; identity theory (Ekman, James, Damasio), which assigns mental states to unique brain states, and functionalism which determines mental states to be tokens of experience.
Barrett et al. reject materialism on the foundation that although these material approaches to emotions may symbolize the cause of emotions, they cannot be accurate because they do not take into account the phenomenological aspect of emotion. This phenomenological aspect is inextricable from the physical occurrence of an emotion because it is precisely what distinguishes an emotion from any other mental or physical phenomenon, like a thought or memory. I found the authors' rejection of materialism refreshing after reading James, Damasio, and LeDoux. LeDoux, in particular, I feel is overly reductionist in his definition of emotions (“biological functions of the nervous system” p. 12) as well as his description of emotional phenomenon. LeDoux's position fails to take into account the effects of complex social environments on the dynamic biological processes of brains. Instead, LeDoux seems to lapse into genetically determined representations of brain structure that rely almost solely on an unconscious basis of emotion. He uses evolution to explain the necessity of unconscious emotional processing but does not offer an evolutionary explanation of the benefits of conscious emotional experiences.
LeDoux's causal approach to emotions, however, is not surprising. Perhaps it is Barret's background as a social psychologist that provides her with a different agenda for emotions than either Damasio, or LeDoux, who are both neuroscientists and consequently, materialists. Barrett et al. favor biological naturalism as a philosophy for investigating the nature of emotions. They place an equal amount of emphasis on the “descriptive psychology of mental contents and a detailed neurobiology that entails them”. Here the authors point to verbal communication as the key to our biological emotional experiences.
How might we improve or enhance our access to introspective states? Maybe if we had a more detailed way of linguistically describing and understanding the inner processes of our mind the study of emotion would be far better off. Lisa Feldman's work on language and emotions seems to indicate that she thinks so too.
reading for feb 7th
Most of this weeks readings looked at issues we have come across before: emotional expression, emotion recognition, new ways of looking at emotions categorically, neuroimaging techniques, emotion subjectivity, and the evolution of emotions, yet one issue that was brought up at various relevant times in some of the readings was the idea of “context” in dissecting and defining emotions and their processes. In the article Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotions the authors break down the connection between physical emotional expression and the internal emotion process. They claim that modern evolutionary theory partially rejects the historical interpretations of Darwin and Sylvan Tompkins (of basic, cross-species, cross-cultural emotional expressions) for a more socially relevant theory: that the “sender” of the emotional expression has a direct intention with that expression towards a “receiver”, who interprets the sender’s emotion with the vocal and physical cues provided. What the paper generally argues is that although a great deal can be deduced from these “signals” which the sender provides, they are not always accurate. This isn’t to say that the work of Tompkins and Eckman, specifically with facial expression decoding, isn’t valid, but rather, that the role of a “context” is more important then modern day scientists have been able to study. How can you break down the vocal emotional cues of a baby? Are cries and screams really a good way of measuring distress? Is there anything to be said about possible habit forming in these facial and vocal cues? Or more specifically, what kinds of roles do habit, current affective states, gender, current activation states, age, location, time, etc. play in defining these outward emotional responses.
In relation to these points, the article entitled The Experience of Emotion delves into a similar situation with the roles of content and context in defining emotional states and expressions. In the beginning of the article, the authors mention three different methods in defining emotions: the materialist idea, that emotions are defined by their causes, the behaviorist idea, that emotion is simply a behavior (in bodily states, basic emotion models, activity in neurochemical/brain circuit systems, or a combination of all these things), and the functionalist idea, that emotion is defined by immediate causal relations, specifically, the function as opposed to the brain or body. Contemporary science, in the view of this article, needs to find a common ground between these three in testing emotional responses. In addition to this, a greater awareness needs to be given to content and context in the research process of evaluating emotion on a subjective basis. This is hard to do because how do you evaluate someone’s conscious state if there is no way to see, on a first hand basis, what they are experiencing at the moment of an emotion and how that emotion comes about or is influenced by the many factors of that person’s life, current state, and relation to the space they are in? How can you relate an individual’s personal physical, sociocultural, location specific context to a simultaneously occurring emotion without seeing or experiencing it subjectively? Going along with this question, how can you effectively evaluate or define an emotion without a way of measuring the content surrounding the emotional state in addition to the actual physical response and the context, i.e. the person’s active/inactive state (what the authors call “arousal”), level of dominance/submission in their response (“relational”), or mental representation of that emotion (“situational”). All of these factors of content relate to previously discussed (in our class) notions of appraisal systems.
One key point that Ledoux brings up in chapter five of his book, The Emotional Brain, is that an “all-purpose emotion system” doesn’t exist, and that emotions need to be studied on a case by case basis is any information in terms of their cause and effect relationship is to be assessed. Different systems and different modules make up the emotional response in the same way the brain is divided. After Ledoux goes through the theories of James, Tompkins, Darwin, and Eckman, he brings up this same notion of subjectivity that was addressed in the Experience of Emotion article; that each emotional response is different in each human, at a given point of time, in a given situation. Yet, each emotion has commonalities through different cultures and species. He focuses on fear, sstating that fear is pervasive, both on a physical level and on an existential/intellectual level, fear is related to psychology, and that fear exists in humans and animals. This last point brings up the fact that survival tactics are inherent, and sometimes genetic in terms of bodily responses (with the nervous system, mental processes, and bodily functions) yet not in terms of cognitive factors. This, again, raises the issue of context (which Ledoux doesn’t go into) in that genetically even a simple emotion such as fear will not exist in the cognitive association that we all experience as individuals.
I saved the best for last with the New Yorker article entitled The Naked Face in which Gladwell discusses all of these points in a narrative fashion, with two cases in the police force and in sharing his own personal encounter with Eckman. It was particularly interesting hearing about Tomkins and Eckman’s strategies in evolving facial expression recognition as a technique, one that could be mastered with practice. Tomkins, who was said to be a natural perceiver of these facial cues, even exercised his abilities at horse races, which took into account the horses’ previous wins/losses in relation to their emotional state and physical manifestation of their emotional responses. Emotion, for Tomkins, came to be seen as the “code of life” in interpreting and predicting every aspect of personal being and social interaction. Eckman’s own use of the techniques developed by himself and Tomkins proved to be very entertaining, especially when he commented on facial expression number AU two, “It’s very hard, but it’s worthless. It’s not part of anything except Kabuki Theater.”(p. 6)
The question of how the two cops accessed situations and determined whether danger existed becomes key in the issue of facial expression detection and interpretation as inherent in some but not all people. Clearly, both cops had a certain gut instinct that was tied both to their own natural perceptive abilities and experience in their professions. This point again calls to mind the idea of context, in that the abilities of the cops and the practices of Tompkins and Eckman are both natural and acquired techniques.
Another point of interest is this technique’s application to software development, as in the Maya renderings of companies like Pixar, where the facial recognition software (FACS) is used to develop realistic interpretations of emotional expression. This development could lead to a great many things in decoding emotional responses, specifically with artistic uses and surveillance, crime detection systems. It’s both useful, as Gladwell points out, and dangerous in that it opens up a whole realm of, what he calls, “uncomfortable possibilities”.
All of the articles focused on a broad range of topics we have seen before, yet what came to mind in applying all these theories we have been studying to actual manifestations and interpretations of emotional responses is the need for context to be taken into account in the definition and evaluation process. Context socially, mentally, physically, and pertaining to time, space, and other engrained factors of our consciousness. The question that we are left with is: How can you evaluate this in an objective way?
In relation to these points, the article entitled The Experience of Emotion delves into a similar situation with the roles of content and context in defining emotional states and expressions. In the beginning of the article, the authors mention three different methods in defining emotions: the materialist idea, that emotions are defined by their causes, the behaviorist idea, that emotion is simply a behavior (in bodily states, basic emotion models, activity in neurochemical/brain circuit systems, or a combination of all these things), and the functionalist idea, that emotion is defined by immediate causal relations, specifically, the function as opposed to the brain or body. Contemporary science, in the view of this article, needs to find a common ground between these three in testing emotional responses. In addition to this, a greater awareness needs to be given to content and context in the research process of evaluating emotion on a subjective basis. This is hard to do because how do you evaluate someone’s conscious state if there is no way to see, on a first hand basis, what they are experiencing at the moment of an emotion and how that emotion comes about or is influenced by the many factors of that person’s life, current state, and relation to the space they are in? How can you relate an individual’s personal physical, sociocultural, location specific context to a simultaneously occurring emotion without seeing or experiencing it subjectively? Going along with this question, how can you effectively evaluate or define an emotion without a way of measuring the content surrounding the emotional state in addition to the actual physical response and the context, i.e. the person’s active/inactive state (what the authors call “arousal”), level of dominance/submission in their response (“relational”), or mental representation of that emotion (“situational”). All of these factors of content relate to previously discussed (in our class) notions of appraisal systems.
One key point that Ledoux brings up in chapter five of his book, The Emotional Brain, is that an “all-purpose emotion system” doesn’t exist, and that emotions need to be studied on a case by case basis is any information in terms of their cause and effect relationship is to be assessed. Different systems and different modules make up the emotional response in the same way the brain is divided. After Ledoux goes through the theories of James, Tompkins, Darwin, and Eckman, he brings up this same notion of subjectivity that was addressed in the Experience of Emotion article; that each emotional response is different in each human, at a given point of time, in a given situation. Yet, each emotion has commonalities through different cultures and species. He focuses on fear, sstating that fear is pervasive, both on a physical level and on an existential/intellectual level, fear is related to psychology, and that fear exists in humans and animals. This last point brings up the fact that survival tactics are inherent, and sometimes genetic in terms of bodily responses (with the nervous system, mental processes, and bodily functions) yet not in terms of cognitive factors. This, again, raises the issue of context (which Ledoux doesn’t go into) in that genetically even a simple emotion such as fear will not exist in the cognitive association that we all experience as individuals.
I saved the best for last with the New Yorker article entitled The Naked Face in which Gladwell discusses all of these points in a narrative fashion, with two cases in the police force and in sharing his own personal encounter with Eckman. It was particularly interesting hearing about Tomkins and Eckman’s strategies in evolving facial expression recognition as a technique, one that could be mastered with practice. Tomkins, who was said to be a natural perceiver of these facial cues, even exercised his abilities at horse races, which took into account the horses’ previous wins/losses in relation to their emotional state and physical manifestation of their emotional responses. Emotion, for Tomkins, came to be seen as the “code of life” in interpreting and predicting every aspect of personal being and social interaction. Eckman’s own use of the techniques developed by himself and Tomkins proved to be very entertaining, especially when he commented on facial expression number AU two, “It’s very hard, but it’s worthless. It’s not part of anything except Kabuki Theater.”(p. 6)
The question of how the two cops accessed situations and determined whether danger existed becomes key in the issue of facial expression detection and interpretation as inherent in some but not all people. Clearly, both cops had a certain gut instinct that was tied both to their own natural perceptive abilities and experience in their professions. This point again calls to mind the idea of context, in that the abilities of the cops and the practices of Tompkins and Eckman are both natural and acquired techniques.
Another point of interest is this technique’s application to software development, as in the Maya renderings of companies like Pixar, where the facial recognition software (FACS) is used to develop realistic interpretations of emotional expression. This development could lead to a great many things in decoding emotional responses, specifically with artistic uses and surveillance, crime detection systems. It’s both useful, as Gladwell points out, and dangerous in that it opens up a whole realm of, what he calls, “uncomfortable possibilities”.
All of the articles focused on a broad range of topics we have seen before, yet what came to mind in applying all these theories we have been studying to actual manifestations and interpretations of emotional responses is the need for context to be taken into account in the definition and evaluation process. Context socially, mentally, physically, and pertaining to time, space, and other engrained factors of our consciousness. The question that we are left with is: How can you evaluate this in an objective way?
Reading Response-February7th
This week’s reading focused on different aspects of the expression of emotion. The facial and bodily expressions as means for communication and expression of emotion, their origins and cultural resemblances where largely discussed throughout the readings.
In LeDoux’s chapter5, “The way we were”, he introduces us to the evolution of emotions. He thinks every emotion comes from a different network in the brain and therefore should be studied one at the time. He chooses to study fear being a primitive emotion, universal and also shared with animals. Fear is associated with survival reflexes; responses to danger are similar in every animal and society. In this perspective he uses Darwin’s work to explain the evolution of emotions. “Mind and behavior are also shaped by natural selection” which would explain the similarities in expression of emotions between animals and humans and within human societies. The innateness of the expression of our emotions I thought was very intriguing; and to think that one aspect of being civilized is learning how to control the expression of our emotions. He also brings up the idea that bodily expression is the first means of communication between the mother and the child. Even beyond the mother-infant relationship I would say that it stays a very important means of communication but that it looses it’s importance or consciousness because we are less used to using it. Is bodily expression more truthful but harder to interpret once words have been introduced? The impact of society was also presented and the differences in the way cultures express their emotions is fascinating. Is it possible to understand those differences? And in what way can those differences inform us on societies?
In this chapter he also talks about the different researches that have been done to find “basic emotion” with universal facial expression. It seems as though a lot of research has been done with a lot of various results. It appears as though some universal basic emotion could potentially exist but it seems very hard to fall in agreement.
The first article, “Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion” broke this question in two parts, one concerning the receiver and the other the sender. Different perspectives and tests exist for example using actors. This article brings up the question of how to control our emotions? And to what extend is it possible? If we can actually recognize signals throughout different societies, meaning codes do exist for all humans. Can we explain their origins and differences? The sender has different tools, for example facial or vocal and it appears that we express our emotions that way only in public, which enhances the importance of bodily expression as a means of communication.
The second article “The Experience of Emotion” brings up several issues. First of all it presents the different approaches that exist to the study of expression of emotion and the different aspects they all suggest. Emotion has an important subjective aspect; will research ever be able to come through this obstacle? The writer focuses on the idea of consciousness. He mentions the emotions of pleasure and displeasure has being universal and present at birth, but how can one read the emotion of a child? If we don’t have any consciousness of an emotion can we still say it is there? What is an emotion without consciousness? How can we measure it? Can an emotion exist without a feeling?
The “The Naked Face” article focuses primarily on facial expression and the work Ekman did to catalog all possible expression and their meaning. He differentiates voluntary and involuntary expression. He points out the fact that we don’t use facial expression to understand one another as much as we could. What would it be like if we actually used all those significance he found? How would our relationships change? How would it be if we could control all our expression? This article also puts forward the question of how much consciousness we have of our emotions and the ways we can express them.
Finally in the last article, “Listening to your heart: interoceptive awareness as a gateway to feeling”, the author poses the question of which comes first between body sensation and feeling? Which one is the consequence of the other; does it have to only work one way? This also was an issue in Ekman’s work when he realized that making the facial expression he had catalogued could make the feeling it was linked to arise. He also presents the difference between emotion and feeling, which I still found confusing.
The readings brought up a lot of interesting question about the expression of emotions. Some of the main issues seemed to be the cultural differences in bodily expression and our relation and consciousness to our own emotions. The definition of emotion and its location in the brain, the different functions it implies is also an important part of the research. It is a very large subject and it appears to be complicated for researches to find a common ground.
In LeDoux’s chapter5, “The way we were”, he introduces us to the evolution of emotions. He thinks every emotion comes from a different network in the brain and therefore should be studied one at the time. He chooses to study fear being a primitive emotion, universal and also shared with animals. Fear is associated with survival reflexes; responses to danger are similar in every animal and society. In this perspective he uses Darwin’s work to explain the evolution of emotions. “Mind and behavior are also shaped by natural selection” which would explain the similarities in expression of emotions between animals and humans and within human societies. The innateness of the expression of our emotions I thought was very intriguing; and to think that one aspect of being civilized is learning how to control the expression of our emotions. He also brings up the idea that bodily expression is the first means of communication between the mother and the child. Even beyond the mother-infant relationship I would say that it stays a very important means of communication but that it looses it’s importance or consciousness because we are less used to using it. Is bodily expression more truthful but harder to interpret once words have been introduced? The impact of society was also presented and the differences in the way cultures express their emotions is fascinating. Is it possible to understand those differences? And in what way can those differences inform us on societies?
In this chapter he also talks about the different researches that have been done to find “basic emotion” with universal facial expression. It seems as though a lot of research has been done with a lot of various results. It appears as though some universal basic emotion could potentially exist but it seems very hard to fall in agreement.
The first article, “Facial and Vocal Expressions of Emotion” broke this question in two parts, one concerning the receiver and the other the sender. Different perspectives and tests exist for example using actors. This article brings up the question of how to control our emotions? And to what extend is it possible? If we can actually recognize signals throughout different societies, meaning codes do exist for all humans. Can we explain their origins and differences? The sender has different tools, for example facial or vocal and it appears that we express our emotions that way only in public, which enhances the importance of bodily expression as a means of communication.
The second article “The Experience of Emotion” brings up several issues. First of all it presents the different approaches that exist to the study of expression of emotion and the different aspects they all suggest. Emotion has an important subjective aspect; will research ever be able to come through this obstacle? The writer focuses on the idea of consciousness. He mentions the emotions of pleasure and displeasure has being universal and present at birth, but how can one read the emotion of a child? If we don’t have any consciousness of an emotion can we still say it is there? What is an emotion without consciousness? How can we measure it? Can an emotion exist without a feeling?
The “The Naked Face” article focuses primarily on facial expression and the work Ekman did to catalog all possible expression and their meaning. He differentiates voluntary and involuntary expression. He points out the fact that we don’t use facial expression to understand one another as much as we could. What would it be like if we actually used all those significance he found? How would our relationships change? How would it be if we could control all our expression? This article also puts forward the question of how much consciousness we have of our emotions and the ways we can express them.
Finally in the last article, “Listening to your heart: interoceptive awareness as a gateway to feeling”, the author poses the question of which comes first between body sensation and feeling? Which one is the consequence of the other; does it have to only work one way? This also was an issue in Ekman’s work when he realized that making the facial expression he had catalogued could make the feeling it was linked to arise. He also presents the difference between emotion and feeling, which I still found confusing.
The readings brought up a lot of interesting question about the expression of emotions. Some of the main issues seemed to be the cultural differences in bodily expression and our relation and consciousness to our own emotions. The definition of emotion and its location in the brain, the different functions it implies is also an important part of the research. It is a very large subject and it appears to be complicated for researches to find a common ground.
Monday, January 29, 2007
response for 1/31-reconceiving what we are looking for
In the first three chapters of Descartes’ Error, Damasio relates the cases of Phineas Gage and Elliot. Phineas Gage survived an accident in which a metal rod passed through his head and Elliot had a brain tumor removed surgically. Both survived their ordeals seemingly intact with full language and motor ability. Even cognitively neither seemed to have suffered any loss of faculties. However, according to people who knew them before their traumas, both underwent complete personality change. Phineas Gage, who had been a charming man with noted leadership abilities, became socially inappropriate, prone to fits of temper and bad language, and unable to make long-term plans for himself. Elliot underwent more subtle changes. Damasio noted how remote Elliot was. His were emotional reactions nearly completely suppressed and strangely even Elliot had noticed this change in himself. Elliot participated in experiments that showed that he had the knowledge of what a good decision would be across a variety of different situations but he was unable to make advantageous decisions for himself. Both cases suggest that the disruption of a brain system disabled social and decision-making abilities in both men. Though they both had the experience and knowledge of social norms, they were unable to make use of it. Damasio asks the questions: what was disabled in both men and, even more basic, what are the usual basic steps in decision-making for human beings whose brains are intact?
In chapter 4 of The Emotional Brain, LeDoux recounts the search to identify what process in our brains accounts for our experience of emotions and ends by reorienting it. Gall had the insight that “functions [in the brain] are localized,”(p. 76), that is that each part of the brain has specific functions. However, we now know that processes are not limited to specific areas of the brain but involve networks comprised of interacting areas. Damasio describes MacLean’s limbic system theory as having enormous influence on research up until now but explains why it is inaccurate. MacLean’s theory posited that the limbic system integrated our external and internal experience and that our emotions come out of the system. LeDoux believes that an aspect of MacLean’s theory is correct: the influence of evolution (continuity between animals and human beings that Darwin proposed) is observable in the brain. Emotions are brain functions that are beneficial to our survival. But, as he says, MacLean looked too broadly at emotions in positing that all were the result of one system. Rather, “…different emotions are involved with different survival functions…” and probably involve many specialized emotional systems in the brain. (p. 103)
The article Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Human Emotions (2004) evaluates the findings of several neuroimaging studies. Phan, Wager, Taylor and Liberzon write about the findings that observed activation of specific brain structures, anticipated to be part of the neural basis of emotion, focusing mainly on limbic structures. The authors conclude that the findings suggest that certain brain structures may be involved in specific and some in more general emotion-related tasks. In the future, the authors believe more fine-tuned imaging techniques will allow researchers to identify the interconnections of brain areas in an “emotion network.”
The last article, The Structure of Emotion, looks at the evidence so far from neuorimaging studies already conducted using fMRI and PET by comparing the findings of two meta-studies.. Barrett and Wager begin the article with the question, “What are the basic building blocks of emotional life….?” and describe two central theories. The first theory (as in Paul Ekman’s work) is that there are inheritable basic categories of emotion: anger, fear, sadness, happiness and disgust. The second theory seeks to identify in the brain signs of dimensions of emotional response. The dimensions considered are: valence (pleasure/displeasure), positive or negative activation, or approach and withdrawal. To establish evidence in support of either theory, what is needed is to be able to identify patterns of activation that are consistent and specific.
It seems from this study that previous findings do not conclusively establish or rule out either of the two theories. The authors suggest that possibly a new model should be investigated, perhaps one based on “stimulus salience. “ (I’m not sure what this is.)
They end their article by recommending issues to be considered in future studies. They point out that the technology is getting much more refined, allowing much more specific study of functional regions. This may help distinguish between emotions reflected in the activity of structures of the brain. They urge researchers to study circuits rather than specific brain areas. They also point out that in looking at brain activity researchers may be observing the brain doing more than purely responding emotionally and that researchers are getting better at identifying confounding factors. Researchers need to refine their inferential process. In brain mapping they seek to evoke a certain emotional response (fear) and look to see if a certain brain structure responds (amygdala.) But whenever the amygdala is activated, is there fear?
Their final point is a fascinating one, challenging scientists to dismantle the conceptual framework for what they are looking for. Perhaps our “emotion words” (fear, sadness, happiness, etc.) do not map out to distinct events in the brain. As I understand it, the authors suggest that researchers might look at brain responses to conceive a new understanding: observe how emotions created from psychological processes play out in neural systems, then allow this understanding to reshape how we conceive of emotions.
This last article raises the issue Elizabeth and Leah were suggesting we look at next, the role of language in understanding emotion. How specific is our language for emotion really? Are even emotions we understand as easily distinguishable from others (happiness, for example), really an experience as distinct from other emotions in our actual brains as we conceive it to be?
When LeDoux posits the existence of many emotional systems in the brain does this fit within Phan, Wager, Taylor and Liberzon’s idea that there is an “emotional network”?
In chapter 4 of The Emotional Brain, LeDoux recounts the search to identify what process in our brains accounts for our experience of emotions and ends by reorienting it. Gall had the insight that “functions [in the brain] are localized,”(p. 76), that is that each part of the brain has specific functions. However, we now know that processes are not limited to specific areas of the brain but involve networks comprised of interacting areas. Damasio describes MacLean’s limbic system theory as having enormous influence on research up until now but explains why it is inaccurate. MacLean’s theory posited that the limbic system integrated our external and internal experience and that our emotions come out of the system. LeDoux believes that an aspect of MacLean’s theory is correct: the influence of evolution (continuity between animals and human beings that Darwin proposed) is observable in the brain. Emotions are brain functions that are beneficial to our survival. But, as he says, MacLean looked too broadly at emotions in positing that all were the result of one system. Rather, “…different emotions are involved with different survival functions…” and probably involve many specialized emotional systems in the brain. (p. 103)
The article Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Human Emotions (2004) evaluates the findings of several neuroimaging studies. Phan, Wager, Taylor and Liberzon write about the findings that observed activation of specific brain structures, anticipated to be part of the neural basis of emotion, focusing mainly on limbic structures. The authors conclude that the findings suggest that certain brain structures may be involved in specific and some in more general emotion-related tasks. In the future, the authors believe more fine-tuned imaging techniques will allow researchers to identify the interconnections of brain areas in an “emotion network.”
The last article, The Structure of Emotion, looks at the evidence so far from neuorimaging studies already conducted using fMRI and PET by comparing the findings of two meta-studies.. Barrett and Wager begin the article with the question, “What are the basic building blocks of emotional life….?” and describe two central theories. The first theory (as in Paul Ekman’s work) is that there are inheritable basic categories of emotion: anger, fear, sadness, happiness and disgust. The second theory seeks to identify in the brain signs of dimensions of emotional response. The dimensions considered are: valence (pleasure/displeasure), positive or negative activation, or approach and withdrawal. To establish evidence in support of either theory, what is needed is to be able to identify patterns of activation that are consistent and specific.
It seems from this study that previous findings do not conclusively establish or rule out either of the two theories. The authors suggest that possibly a new model should be investigated, perhaps one based on “stimulus salience. “ (I’m not sure what this is.)
They end their article by recommending issues to be considered in future studies. They point out that the technology is getting much more refined, allowing much more specific study of functional regions. This may help distinguish between emotions reflected in the activity of structures of the brain. They urge researchers to study circuits rather than specific brain areas. They also point out that in looking at brain activity researchers may be observing the brain doing more than purely responding emotionally and that researchers are getting better at identifying confounding factors. Researchers need to refine their inferential process. In brain mapping they seek to evoke a certain emotional response (fear) and look to see if a certain brain structure responds (amygdala.) But whenever the amygdala is activated, is there fear?
Their final point is a fascinating one, challenging scientists to dismantle the conceptual framework for what they are looking for. Perhaps our “emotion words” (fear, sadness, happiness, etc.) do not map out to distinct events in the brain. As I understand it, the authors suggest that researchers might look at brain responses to conceive a new understanding: observe how emotions created from psychological processes play out in neural systems, then allow this understanding to reshape how we conceive of emotions.
This last article raises the issue Elizabeth and Leah were suggesting we look at next, the role of language in understanding emotion. How specific is our language for emotion really? Are even emotions we understand as easily distinguishable from others (happiness, for example), really an experience as distinct from other emotions in our actual brains as we conceive it to be?
When LeDoux posits the existence of many emotional systems in the brain does this fit within Phan, Wager, Taylor and Liberzon’s idea that there is an “emotional network”?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Two Opposing Theories on Emotion
This week’s readings focused primarily on the location of emotions in the human brain. In Descartes’ Error, the case studies of Phineas Gage and Elliot were discussed and compared. In The Emotional Brain, various theories of brain function and emotion were highlighted including the famous limbic system by Paul MacLean. We concluded with two research studies that used neuroimaging (PET and fMRI) to test current hypotheses regarding emotion.
In Descartes’ Error, the case of Phineas Gage was examined in depth. It is one of the most fascinating examples of brain disorder. Phineas Gage was struck by a metal rod while working on constructing a railroad in
Gage’s incredible case started a buzz in the field of brain science. Two opposing views of brain function emerged from the frenzy. The first theory stated that psychological functions, such as language and memory were not isolated to specific regions of the brain but were part of an integrated system. The second theory opposed the first theory and stated that psychological functions were found in different regions of the brain. The debate between these two theories continues to this day.
The case of Elliot occurred many years after Phineas Gage but exhibited similar effects. Elliot had frontal lobe damage and showed signs of personality change. He was able to perform normally on various memory tests used to assess frontal lobe dysfunction. He behaved and performed ‘normally’ within society. However, Elliot’s emotional state was slightly off. He was disengaged, calm, and dispassionate when recounting horrifically tragic events. He expressed no pain over the tragedy. It was clear that damage to the frontal lobe had created a blockage in Elliot’s emotional response. Do Elliot and Pineas Gage provide evidence to support the second theory of emotion? Are emotions located in specific regions of the brain? Or do these two cases support the first theory? Is the damage blocking emotional pathways connected to various regions of the brain?
The Limbic System theory of emotion is the most accepted theory today. Previous theories on emotion helped to create it. The Limbic System theory has roots in Phrenology which was the study of brain mapping. Bumps were traced on the human head dividing the brain into various functions. The theory of localization of brain functions originated out of Phrenology. Since then, numerous neuroscientists have been trying to prove (or disprove) localization. Philip Bard “carried out a systematic series of lesion studies aimed at finding just what parts of the brain are required for the expression of rage”(Le Doux 81). Bard found that the critical lesion was on the hypothalamus. He labeled it as the centerpiece of emotion.
In opposition to localization, James Papez, a
The Limbic System was developed by Paul MacLean. The hippocampus was believed to receive inputs from the external world as well as from the internal environment. The emotional experience occurred when internal and external sensations were combined together.
The Structure of Emotion paper compares two approaches to the study of emotion. Meta-analyses were conducted and the results analyzed. The basic emotion approach states that certain categories of emotion are biologically basic-inherited, reflex-like modules that cause a distinct and recognizable behavioral and physiological pattern. The dimensional approach states that these same emotional categories are part of larger biological properties such as valence, arousal, positive and negative activation, approach and withdrawal. The experimenters discovered that the right and left amygdalae were activated with the emotion fear, that the forward portions of the anterior cingulated cortex were activated by sadness, and that the basal ganglia activated the emotion disgust. The experimenters concluded from their study that in order to better understand emotion in the brain “researchers need to move from studying singular brain areas to identifying circuits, because a given brain area may be involved in more than one functional circuit” (Feldman Barrett & Wager 83). The opinions expressed in this research paper belong to the first theory that emotions are not isolated to specific regions of the brain but are a series of integrated systems.
The Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Human Emotion uses PET and fMRI to test various hypotheses about emotion. They found that the amygdala was critical to fear-related processing; the medial prefrontal cortex is involved in emotion-related decision making and emotional self-regulation, the insula is the brain’s alarm center that combines internal somatic cues with emotional experience. The experimenters concluded that some regions of the brain are involved in specific emotional tasks while others are involved in more general emotional tasks. The opinions expressed in this research paper belong to the second theory that emotions are found in different regions of the brain.
This week’s readings highlighted and discussed the two basic theories on emotion and provided research to back up both sides of the debate. However, the debate does not seem to be resolved and we do not seem to be any closer to knowing how emotions function in the brain.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain.
Le Doux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life.
Feldman Barrett, L. & Wager, T.D. (2006). The Structure Of Emotion: Evidence From Neuroimaging Studies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 15, pp.79-83. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/tor/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
